Last week an angry Florida judge invited the defendant in a copyright case to propose sanctions against the porn-trolling firm Prenda Law for misleading the court. The case pitted a porn producer called Sunlust Pictures against a Florida man named Tuan Nguyen. Yet the case was such a fiasco that by the time of last week's hearing, there were no lawyers left who were willing to represent the plaintiffs.

The defense says that the lawsuit was orchestrated by an Illinois law firm called Prenda Law. But Prenda can't practice law in Florida, so it needed to recruit a local attorney to represent its interests in the state. At last week's hearing, the Florida attorney Jonathan Torres told Judge Mary Scriven that he had been recruited for the job by Prenda but now wanted out of the case. Yet Prenda sent in a letter claiming it had nothing to do with the case. And John Steele, an Illinois attorney with ties to Prenda who was sitting in the audience near the plaintiff's table, told Judge Scriven that he wasn't involved in the case either. An incredulous Judge Scriven dismissed the case and asked the defense to propose punishments for Prenda's "lack of candor."

On Tuesday, defense attorney Graham Syfert took Judge Scriven up on her offer, submitting a motion for sanctions against Prenda Law, John Steele, and others affiliated with the ethically challenged law firm.

Syfert provided strong evidence that Steele was lying when he claimed not to be involved in the case. Prenda's letter denying involvement in the case was submitted by email as a PDF. Syfert examined the metadata for this PDF file and found the document had a "title" of "Steele Law Firm" and an "author" of "Kerry Eckenrode." Syfert says "Kerry Eckenrode" is the maiden name of Steele's wife, and "Steele Law Firm" is the name of Steele's current law practice. An obvious interpretation would be that Steele ghost-wrote the letter denying Prenda was involved in the case and had Prenda lawyer Paul Duffy sign it. And then a few days later he showed up at a hearing in that same case.

"It is common for John Steele to create documents and send e-mails with other attorney’s names to serve his own agenda, with or without their knowledge," Syfert told the court. We covered another case of alleged sock-puppetry by Steele on Wednesday.

Syfert also had ample evidence that Duffy (or whoever wrote the letter) was lying when he claimed not to be involved in the case. Duffy personally made courtroom appearances in at least three Sunlust lawsuits in Illinois. Even more damning, Prenda's own website has a page listing "a sample of individuals who chose to litigate the matter and are currently in court over their alleged infringement." That page has a link to the original complaint against Syfert's client before the Florida courts.

Syfert said that he would be filing a separate motion asking Sunlust pictures to cover the defense's legal costs, along with a "lodestar multiplier" to reflect the plaintiff's misconduct. He requested that Prenda, Steele, Duffy, and others associated with Prenda be on the hook for those costs.

Getting some answers

Syfert wasn't finished. Judge Scriven had also invited a motion for sanctions against Matthew Wasinger, a Florida attorney who had briefly acted as Prenda's local counsel before asking to be excused from the case. (He and Torres were two of at least four Florida lawyers who have tried to bow out of the case since August.) But Scriven hadn't yet excused him from the case, so he was obligated to attend the hearing. When he failed to do so, Scriven invited the defense to propose sanctions against him as well.

In another motion, also filed on Tuesday, Syfert estimated that monetary sanctions between $500 and $3400 would be an appropriate penalty for failing to show up in court. But he said he was more interested in getting information from Wasinger than cash. So he proposed that Wasinger be excused from paying a financial penalty if he agreed to answer a series of 14 questions about his relationship to Prenda, Steele, and Sunlust.

These questions focus on how Wasinger first got involved in the case, the extent of Wasinger's communications with Duffy and Steele, the details of his financial arrangement with Prenda and Sunlust, and whether his legal filings were being ghost-written by others. Syfert also wants to know how much contact Wasinger had with the nominal client, Sunlust Pictures, and whether Wasinger ever actually reviewed the evidence that supposedly proved the defendants were guilty of copyright infringement.

"By requiring answers to these questions, defendants counsel hopes that the responses serve as a warning to other potential 'local counsel' representatives of Prenda Law," Syfert wrote. He hoped that when Prenda tried to recruit new attorneys in the future, they would have "reasonable disclosure of the facts surrounding the cases that they are accepting and ability to adequately protect the interest of their clients." Presumably, once attorneys understand what they're getting into, most of them will run away screaming.

Update: I mistakenly suggested Steele flew from Illinois to Tampa, but I'm told that as a Miami resident he may not have needed to fly there.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

Am I the only one disturbed that professionals that require reading "the fine print" jumped in head first in these cases without understanding the details behind the case(s)? I guess they couldn't resist the allure of the cash-grab nature of these cases to make a quick buck? I can see why lawyers are maligned when you have these kinds of representatives fighting the (not) good fight.

Am I the only one disturbed that professionals that require reading "the fine print" jumped in head first in these cases without understanding the details behind the case(s)? I guess they couldn't resist the allure of the cash-grab nature of these cases to make a quick buck? I can see why lawyers are maligned when you have these kinds of representatives fighting the (not) good fight.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

I'm not sure that they necessarily 'just scraped by', but I am willing to bet that they were absent on the day they taught ethics...

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

The fact they're members of the bar is what scares me. Because if they have membership it's supposed to mean they know how to be a bare minimum lawyer right? Unless in Florida bar membership isn't mandatory.

It's refreshing to see a sensible amount of money proposed as punishment.

I would of liked better seeing the Defense say they wanted One To Five Million Dollars and that they would be willing to Donate 95% of that amount into a Fund which helps out other folks who have been shaken down by John Steele and other A-Holes like him.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

I'm not sure that they necessarily 'just scraped by', but I am willing to bet that they were absent on the day they taught ethics...

They may very well have been in the ethics class, and may well have passed it. Being able to pass an exam on ethics does not automatically make someone an ethical person.

I had an honest to god Nelson Muntz "Ha Ha" when I read the title of this story. This combined with the details of the identity theft issue in the other trial are unreal. I swear this should be a TV movie.

It's refreshing to see a sensible amount of money proposed as punishment.

I would of liked better seeing the Defense say they wanted One To Five Million Dollars and that they would be willing to Donate 95% of that amount into a Fund which helps out other folks who have been shaken down by John Steele and other A-Holes like him.

No kidding. Let's see how they like the multimillion dollar shakedown.

It's refreshing to see a sensible amount of money proposed as punishment.

I would of liked better seeing the Defense say they wanted One To Five Million Dollars and that they would be willing to Donate 95% of that amount into a Fund which helps out other folks who have been shaken down by John Steele and other A-Holes like him.

People can't just pull numbers out of thin air. Right now, the Defense has the good will of the Court and, rather than imposing sanctions herself, the judge asked the Defense what they thought was appropriate. To say "One to Five Million Dollars" would probably make the judge feel that they're not taking this seriously, thus losing that good will.

I'm not sure that they necessarily 'just scraped by', but I am willing to bet that they were absent on the day they taught ethics...

Lawyers are taught ethics? Could have fooled me with all the stories lately

Like cops and doctors, well-behaved lawyers rarely make the news.

The profession itself is self-correcting, and I expect that Steele will be heavily sanctioned for this at some point, either by means of a fine or disbarment. Law just moves significantly slower than technology, or the expectations of technophiles who are used to Google-speed gratification. Nor are judges prone to knee-jerk sanctions -- especially disbarment, where you are permanently barring an individual from an entire profession on which they have staked their livelihood -- even when they are well-deserved. That restraint isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if it makes Steele's comeuppance slow to unfold. The wheels of justice turn very slowly and are lubricated with copious amounts of printer ink.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

I'm not sure that they necessarily 'just scraped by', but I am willing to bet that they were absent on the day they taught ethics...

Lawyer ethics are different from actual ethics.

Courts have many times ruled to not allow DNA testing of evidence that might prove the innocence of convicted murderers. Innocence or guilt takes a back seat to due process.

Excellent storytelling as usual. One potential incorrectness: unless it is customary to fly from Miami to Tampa rather than drive, John Steele most likely did not "hop the plane." He still dwells in Florida -- rents a house in Miami Area, and another place in Las Vegas. He intended to move to LV fully in September, but for some reason couldn't. His move to Nevada has everything to do with his troubles with FL bar.

When I see lawyers that pull this kind of malarkie, it just makes me shake my head. The plaintiffs in this case do deserve sanctions for their behavier. If they get disbarred, then they can only plame their greedy little selves for it.

Excellent storytelling as usual. One potential incorrectness: unless it is customary to fly from Miami to Tampa rather than drive, John Steele most likely did not "hop the plane." He still dwells in Florida -- rents a house in Miami Area, and another place in Las Vegas. He intended to move to LV fully in September, but for some reason couldn't. His move to Nevada has everything to do with his troubles with FL bar.

Even if these aren't the brightest bulbs in the world, I would think that these lawyers who agreed to take on the case would keep the documentation saying that Prenda was hiring them to represent the case in Florida. If you're a lawyer, you don't just agree to do something on a handshake or verbal agreement. You get something in writing, so if things go sideways, you've got a CYA paper trail. So that Steele seems to think that he can claim that he isn't at all involved in this seems like a bit of wishful thinking and hole digging on his part. Seems like he might have committed a bit of perjury by submitting that letter to the court.

I almost feel sorry for these lawyers. Lawyers are always referring cases to other lawyers, usually through various contacts they have. I'm sure Steele was a friend of a friend to most of these guys, and they stupidly agreed to sign on to the case without doing much research. And only then realized how stupid they were when they looked into the case. Certainly that doesn't absolve them though, and they're going to pay for their stupidity. Plus, I'm thinking that Mr. Steele is going to join the ranks of Jack Thompson as someone who used to have a license to practice law.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

The fact they're members of the bar is what scares me. Because if they have membership it's supposed to mean they know how to be a bare minimum lawyer right? Unless in Florida bar membership isn't mandatory.

If I remember correctly, Mr. Steele is either not licensed to practice in Florida, or is expressly barred from practicing in Florida. If it turns out that he is, in fact, behind this lawsuit, that means a major smackdown on him and every attorney or firm that has aided him in hiding his involvement.

Even if these aren't the brightest bulbs in the world, I would think that these lawyers who agreed to take on the case would keep the documentation saying that Prenda was hiring them to represent the case in Florida. If you're a lawyer, you don't just agree to do something on a handshake or verbal agreement. You get something in writing, so if things go sideways, you've got a CYA paper trail. So that Steele seems to think that he can claim that he isn't at all involved in this seems like a bit of wishful thinking and hole digging on his part. Seems like he might have committed a bit of perjury by submitting that letter to the court.

It's actually not uncommon for lawyers to ask other lawyers to stand in just long enough to request a Continuance on a case with nothing more than a verbal agreement, particularly if the lawyer who should be there has some sort of scheduling conflict. This three-ring circus, though, is very uncommon, where everyone on the Plaintiff's side is disavowing any involvement and responsibility. Someone's getting burned here, and my money is on the coals coming down on Steele (for practicing without a license and lying about his involvement in the case) and Prenda (for lying about their own involvement and covering up Steele's involvement).

Someone's getting burned here, and my money is on the coals coming down on Steele (for practicing without a license and lying about his involvement in the case) and Prenda (for lying about their own involvement and covering up Steele's involvement).

If all holds to be true, Steele is looking at some rather serious criminal charges, beyond simple disbarment and fines. And I don't think he'll fare well in federal prison, he doesn't look that physically tough to fend off the really nasty predators.

Also, the defence lawyers aren't going to take the piss with the sanctions; that might be them on the receiving end some day. Plus, as noted above, they don't want the judge to think they aren't taking it seriously.

It's refreshing to see a sensible amount of money proposed as punishment.

What's more sensible to me is the alternative "punishment" that he suggested instead of a monetary penalty. The good old carrot and the stick, should he take it or take the hit. If he takes the carrot and answers the questions, would he run the risk of disbarment? No lawyer here, but obviously he would need to watch what and how he answers the question. Just curious how far he could go without violating acp.

Am I the only one disturbed that professionals that require reading "the fine print" jumped in head first in these cases without understanding the details behind the case(s)? I guess they couldn't resist the allure of the cash-grab nature of these cases to make a quick buck? I can see why lawyers are maligned when you have these kinds of representatives fighting the (not) good fight.

I can't see why he shouldn't be enjoined from practicing law in Florida as a punishment for lying to the court.

It's refreshing to see a sensible amount of money proposed as punishment.

What's more sensible to me is the alternative "punishment" that he suggested instead of a monetary penalty. The good old carrot and the stick, should he take it or take the hit. If he takes the carrot and answers the questions, would he run the risk of disbarment? No lawyer here, but obviously he would need to watch what and how he answers the question. Just curious how far he could go without violating acp.

He's lied to the court before. What makes you think he won't lie when he answers the questions?

Update: I mistakenly suggested Steele flew from Illinois to Tampa, but I'm told that as a Miami resident he may not have needed to fly there.

As a Florida resident, many people fly from Tampa or Orlando to Miami. They save a 4 to 4 and 1/2 hour commute, God awful Miami traffic that's only the 3rd worst area to drive in the nation behind LA and New York, and it's no more expensive than the gas it takes for a 300 some mile commute.

Also, the defence lawyers aren't going to take the piss with the sanctions; that might be them on the receiving end some day. Plus, as noted above, they don't want the judge to think they aren't taking it seriously.

The answers to the questions could become evidence in a subsequent suit by one or more of the others that Prenda and Sunlust have sued.

Excellent storytelling as usual. One potential incorrectness: unless it is customary to fly from Miami to Tampa rather than drive, John Steele most likely did not "hop the plane." He still dwells in Florida -- rents a house in Miami Area, and another place in Las Vegas. He intended to move to LV fully in September, but for some reason couldn't. His move to Nevada has everything to do with his troubles with FL bar.

It's 280 miles and takes about 4 hours to drive in optimal conditions. That's about at the distance where you have to think about it to decide which is faster/more convenient, given the amount of time you'll spend in the airport. So it's plausible. Me? I'd drive. But I know plenty of people who would fly that distance.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

The fact they're members of the bar is what scares me. Because if they have membership it's supposed to mean they know how to be a bare minimum lawyer right? Unless in Florida bar membership isn't mandatory.

If I remember correctly, Mr. Steele is either not licensed to practice in Florida, or is expressly barred from practicing in Florida. If it turns out that he is, in fact, behind this lawsuit, that means a major smackdown on him and every attorney or firm that has aided him in hiding his involvement.

I was going to ask why the defence lawyer wasn't seeking his disbarment - this may answer that. It then raises other questions about whether he was practicing law while disbarred, and presumably the judge will look into them.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

The fact they're members of the bar is what scares me. Because if they have membership it's supposed to mean they know how to be a bare minimum lawyer right? Unless in Florida bar membership isn't mandatory.

If I remember correctly, Mr. Steele is either not licensed to practice in Florida, or is expressly barred from practicing in Florida. If it turns out that he is, in fact, behind this lawsuit, that means a major smackdown on him and every attorney or firm that has aided him in hiding his involvement.

I was going to ask why the defence lawyer wasn't seeking his disbarment - this may answer that. It then raises other questions about whether he was practicing law while disbarred, and presumably the judge will look into them.

Thing is, it is still possible for Steele to be disbarred from where he is registered (isn't it Texas) for the fraud committed in Florida. And if Steele is convicted of felony fraud and/or felony identity theft, that will be automatic no matter what. Steele's in it deep. Me, I have no pity.

Lawyers, as with any other profession that requires higher education, have those that graduate at the head of the class with honors, and those who barely scraped by. My guess is were dealing with the guys that had to retake the bar about 100 times just to barely pass.

That and from what I understand there are a bagillion lawyers for every one case. <---OK a tad overstated. There are a lot of lawyers out there even with good creds who will take ANYTHING to get experience under their belt and to frankly get a paycheck.